WPO compliance: Antwerp Labour Court places responsibility on the employer

The Private Investigation Act of 2 July 2024 (“WPO”) imposes strict rules on both private investigators and their clients. A recent judgment of the Antwerp Labour Court dated 26 December 2025 highlights that employers cannot hide behind the investigator: they themselves bear an independent and autonomous responsibility for compliance with the Act.

The stakes are high. In the event of a breach, the evidence gathered may be entirely excluded from the proceedings — with potentially far‑reaching consequences for a dismissal for urgent cause.

👉 Employers considering the use of private investigation services should therefore carefully reflect in advance on their own role and obligations.

What happened in practice?

A technician, employed since 2008 and acting as both an employee representative and a trade union delegate, recorded his working time and travel via an internal IT system. This system relied on manual input by the employee himself.

The employer identified repeated irregularities, including the entry of fictitious addresses. Combined with the finding that the employee was a director of a private limited company operating a tea house, a licensed private investigator was engaged in April 2025.

Following 11 observations spread over a period of three months, the final report revealed a clear pattern: fictitious travel movements and unjustified mileage reimbursements. On 22 August 2025, the employer notified its intention to proceed with a dismissal for urgent cause.

👉 But how did the Labour Court assess this approach? And what role does the Private Investigation Act play?

What did the Antwerp Labour Court decide?

The employee challenged his dismissal for urgent cause, arguing that the final report had been drawn up in breach of the WPO. The Labour Court agreed: the final report of 18 August 2025 was entirely excluded as evidence due to a violation of the WPO.

Why? The observations exceeded the statutory limits in terms of duration and scope. The Court examined not only the investigation itself, but in particular the agreement between the employer and the private investigator: the description of the assignment, its purpose and the planned observations were not compliant with the WPO.

Key lesson for employers: WPO compliance cannot be shifted onto the private investigator.

Those who blindly allow the assignment to be drafted and signed run the risk that crucial evidence will later be excluded.

Our takeaway: actively participate in drafting the assignment description and personally monitor the proportionality and duration of the observations in line with the WPO. Only then can a final report withstand scrutiny as evidence in a dismissal for urgent cause.

The sanction is particularly severe: a non‑WPO‑compliant investigation may result in the complete exclusion of the private investigator’s final report as evidence. For employers who primarily base a dismissal for urgent cause on such a report, this may mean suddenly being left without proof — with the risk of having to pay a severance indemnity and additional damages.

In this case, the employer still had other evidence at its disposal, allowing the Labour Court ultimately to accept the urgent cause. Nevertheless, the judgment clearly demonstrates the substantial evidentiary risk when the WPO is not strictly complied with.

The message is clear: the WPO has a direct impact on HR policy as well as on the evidentiary strategy in employment law disputes.

Considering initiating a private investigation? Keep in mind the following key reminders under the Private Investigation Act (WPO):

✔️ A private investigation into your own employees is only permitted if the rules are transparently laid down in an internal policy — at the latest by 16 December 2026.

💬 Questions about the application of the Private Investigation Act within your organisation or need assistance with a compliant assignment description? Our team is happy to support you.